Gun control reminds me of the exact same logic that nearly everyone here will find utterly repugnant. Consider Sharia law. If a woman shows her arm or leg any man who sees it may turn into a rapist. It is the exact same logic that is used in calling for gun control.

It is people control we need. Heck, maybe start teaching anger management in grade school.

All my cop friends say Guns don't kill, people kill. None of them has ever heard of a gun sitting on a shelf, get up point at someone and pull its own trigger. However every single one of them has heard of a person killing. It is people control we need, not gun control.

that's a wonderful anecdote. Yet, if there weren't guns, then those crazy folks would have to find another way to butcher a crowded theater. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

All my cop friends say Guns don't kill, people kill. None of them has ever heard of a gun sitting on a shelf, get up point at someone and pull its own trigger. However every single one of them has heard of a person killing. It is people control we need, not gun control.

that's a wonderful anecdote. Yet, if there weren't guns, then those crazy folks would have to find another way to butcher a crowded theater.

and let me state that there is no way that any gun law would have prevented this latest incident other than a complete ban. Pandora already opened that box.

Even in a conceal/carry state he would have done what he was going to do. His use of the fire exit also shows his desire for a sneak attack. He didnt go all Matrix on the theater. He snuck in and was caught very shortly later.In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

It is people control we need. Heck, maybe start teaching anger management in grade school.

That is a shutting the stable door approach. It's parents that are supposed to instil that in their children as part of their normal upbringing. If they can't or won't then they should be discouraged from having kids in the first place.

Exactly! so the debates "for/against guns" is just a total waste of time!

No, it isn't. The point of people who are against guns is not related to the guilt question. It's simply that guns make killing easier for people who are willing to kill.

1. It's easier in a practical way. With most of the other tools including bare hands the killer has to get close to the person he/she is willing to kill and needs time for doing so while a gun can kill with one shot over a distance. So the victim has a better chance of either defending him/herself or running away if the killer doesn't have a gun.

2. It's mentally easier. With a gun all the killer needs to do is pointing and pulling the trigger. It's nearly only a technical process. Most of the other tools require some kind of sadism or at least a lack of ruth since the killer has to keep on while his/her victim is in agony.

In the statistical annex (pages 106 and the following) you will find that the homicide rate (homicides per 100,000 people per year) is about 1 to 1.5 in Western European countries while it is 5 to 6 in the USA. That is all the homicides, not just the ones committed with firearms. If guns aren't a problem (I deliberately have put an "a", not a "the" here. Only narrow-minded people think of single causes for complex problems.), you would inevitably have to conclude that the average US American is much more violent than the average Western European. However I don't believe this.

The picture is even more clear if you take the fraction of homicides with firearms into account. 60% of the homicides in the USA are commited with firearms. That means that that rate of homicides with firearms is 3 to 3.3 (0.6 * 5 to 6) in the USA which is still about 2 to 3 times more than all homicides in Western Europe.

Guns don't kill people. Yet, the more guns, the more people get killed. That's a firm fact. US Americans, however, tend to ignore this fact.

Barry,
Ireland is NOT a socialist nation, we had to fight for independence from the United Kingdom.

And I'm sure all those IRA explosives and guns were all perfectly legal. Would gun control laws, words on paper, have prevented all those deaths?

This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.

A useless figure when you frame it in the context of gun control. You want a number based on LEGALLY OWNED firearms. If you exclude the criminal element I bet you'll see that number plummet.me@rescam.org

However in my opinion any debate about such issues must be based on rational arguments rather than emotions.

In the movies, the person with the gun pointed at them always uses a rational argument to sway the highly emotional gun toter to put the weapon down.

Works every time.

Can'tArgueWithTheSunAsItTurnsYouToAshesFourthAngel

And that is related to my argument, how?

It would be better if the guy in your example wouldn't have a gun in the first place. Did anyone in the cinema or at Columbine attempt to shoot back? Do you have any statistic how often a normal citizen saved the lives of himself and bystanders by shooting the shooter. Has this occured even one time in the recent past?

From 2-3 centuries ago law enforcement was much loose in america than many other countries from that time most normal men began to carry gun especially handgun is like regular kitchen knife there. Perhaps that centuries old social practice is now causing this gun disasters in that society.

Because both uk and germany have around 80 million people yet their gun crime death is around 300 each per year but 4 times larger populated america has 37 times more gun crime deaths per year. So there is social practice causing the problem.

For example japan has around 1200 religious cults which many of them created on tax evasion purposes but one of them called Aum Shinrikio has attacked using nerve gas in tokyo metro killing people in 90s. Many cults and many guns are kind of similar social problems.Mandtugai!

One thing that may be a factor is the medical care of mental illness in the USA and the stigma's attached to it. I suspect that is a large issue. Another is the way the culture reacts to frustration with anger and anger with violence. Hollywood shows this as the coming attraction.

No matter the causes, it is a people problem.

And frankly I kind of glad this most recent crazy had access to guns. With his background and training, he easily could have changed the agent in those tear gas grenades to something a lot more deadly. A gun is not a WMD.

I'm not sure how to understand that. You seem to argue in favour of guns, yet Orgil clearly meant "[the] social practice [to own guns]". (Please correct me if I misunderstood this, Orgil) What are you trying to accomplish by ripping a sentence out of context and pretending it was in favour of your position?

One thing that may be a factor is the medical care of mental illness in the USA and the stigma's attached to it. I suspect that is a large issue.

May be, maybe not. I have read, however, that most criminal acts are done by sane people. This is not an argument against stricter gun regulations either. You might ask: How come that a mentally ill person can possess a gun while most mentally ill can't even manage their everyday lives?

Another is the way the culture reacts to frustration with anger and anger with violence. Hollywood shows this as the coming attraction.

We're watching the same movies as you over here in Western Europe. Maybe it is a factor, however you can safely rule it out if you compare the USA and Western Europe.

No matter the causes, it is a people problem.

And since you are a member of this people this makes you part of the problem?

And frankly I kind of glad this most recent crazy had access to guns. With his background and training, he easily could have changed the agent in those tear gas grenades to something a lot more deadly. A gun is not a WMD.

Noone in this thread ever said that a gun would be a weapon of mass destruction. (Even if some people argueing against guns do, and yes, someone here argued that you should allow Iran to own the nuclear bomb with the same logic that is used to argue in favour of guns.) It remains a dangerous piece of equipment nonetheless.

I'm not sure how to understand that. You seem to argue in favour of guns, yet Orgil clearly meant "[the] social practice [to own guns]". (Please correct me if I misunderstood this, Orgil) What are you trying to accomplish by ripping a sentence out of context and pretending it was in favour of your position?

American mentality of gun handling is much much different than traditional european and asian mentalities. That is why I compared it with kitchen knife.

Whatever any small criticism on their gun handling they'll say you constitutional right phrase so any outsiders supposedly to shut up. Maybe it is some constitutional glitch causing these gun disasters to supposedly space tech evolved society.

In last few years germany and finland experienced this crazy shooting crimes too. Maybe old continent is copy catting this gun disaster crime.

Asian and western cultures differ with many levels off hard to define elements factors so we experience with unusual differences on identifying of problems.

You might ask: How come that a mentally ill person can possess a gun while most mentally ill can't even manage their everyday lives?

Common misconception. Most mentally ill people are very capable of getting through their daily lives.

Well, I obviously wasn't clear enough about what I mean by mentally ill. Of course, if you define mentally ill by anyone who has any kind of mental disorder, then most of these people can handle their lives very well. As a matter of fact, these people are apart from their disorder perfectly normal.

I mean people who have that kind of illness that makes them behave destructive to themselves and/or their surrounding.

It is another common misconception that most violent crimes are done by mentally ill. Most of the criminals are perfectly normal.

We're watching the same movies as you over here in Western Europe. Maybe it is a factor, however you can safely rule it out if you compare the USA and Western Europe.

Common misconception, you are watching movies censored for your country. Your country has it's own film ratings board does it not?

Now, THAT is a common misconception.

It's true that free TV is sending cut versions that are rated 12+ over here in the peak viewing time (8-10 o clock), later movies rated 16+, while uncut 18+ is sent well after midnight.

Everyone who is old enough can buy uncut DVD or see the uncut version in the cinema.

If you additionally take illegal copying into account, there are no limits anyway.

No matter the causes, it is a people problem.

And since you are a member of this people this makes you part of the problem?

Ad hominem. Obviously you don't want a discussion, you want an imposition.

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you. I admit, this formulation was too pointed.

It's just me getting frustrated. You are searching for a single cause for a complex problem. As a matter of fact, I want discussion. But you didn't address any of the arguments I made in my original post so far. Somehow it seems to me that even thinking that lax gun control laws might be part of the problem is impossible to US Americans.